scholarly journals Directive 2013/48/EU and the Requested Person’s Right to Appoint a Lawyer in the Issuing Member State in European Arrest Warrant Proceedings

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 7-33
Author(s):  
Vincent Glerum
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Dual Representation ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Framework Decision ◽  
Limited Role ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

Directive 2013/48/EU gives persons who are subject to European arrest warrant proceedings the right to “dual representation”: not only the right of access to a lawyer in the executing Member State but also the right to appoint a lawyer in the issuing Member State, whose limited role it is to provide information and advice to the lawyer in the executing Member State with a view to the effective exercise of the requested person’s rights under Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA. The right to appoint a lawyer in the issuing Member State is supposed to contribute to facilitating judicial cooperation. This article takes a closer look at that right and tries to establish whether – and, if so, to what extent – that right does indeed facilitate judicial cooperation. 

scholarly journals Letter of Rights for Persons Arrested on the Basis of a European Arrest Warrant: A Novelty Under the Directive 2012/13/Eu

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 163-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Libor Klimek
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Framework Decision ◽  
Fundamental Knowledge ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Right To Information ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The paper deals with a Letter of rights for persons arrested on the basis of a European arrest warrant, a novelty introduced by the Directive 2012/13/ EU on the right to information in criminal proceedings. The Directive stipulates that Member States of the EU shall ensure that persons who are arrested for the purpose of the execution of an European arrest warrant are provided promptly with appropriate Letter of rights containing information on their rights according to the law implementing the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant in the executing Member State. The paper is divided into three sections. First section presents fundamental knowledge on starting points of the letter of rights. Further, second section analyses its legal basis, i.e. Directive 2012/13/EU. The last third section introduces an indicative model of letter of rights.

Implementation of European Arrest Warrant in Croatia: A Risk for the Functioning of Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters in the eu?

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 258-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomislav Sokol
Keyword(s):  
Public Attention ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Framework Decision ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

Croatian accession to the eu included the implementation of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States. The way Croatia implemented the eaw Framework Decision, however, has resulted in controversies and public attention, both in Croatia and other Member States, revealing many problems within the system of judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the eu. The aim of the paper is to investigate the implementation of the eaw Framework Decision within Croatia; to determine whether the manner in which the said Member State has carried out the implementation has highlighted a risk for the functioning of judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the eu; and which legal measures should be used in order to prevent disintegration of the cooperation from happening. Several legal measures are proposed, both on the national and the European level, to prevent the risk of further undermining the system of judicial cooperation within the eu. These measures are presented within the context of several overarching legal principles like (providing clearer definition of the notion of) non-verification of double criminality and protection of legal interests of the Member States issuing the European Arrest Warrant.

scholarly journals Fulfillment of the Conditions of Law no. 302/2004 on the European Arrest Warrant

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-41
Author(s):  
Denisa Barbu ◽  
Nicolae Silviu Pana
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Framework Decision ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Security Measure ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Arrest Warrant

In the Romanian and European doctrine, taking into account the definition given by the European legislator in the normative act itself, the Framework “Decision no. 2002/584/JHA, the European arrest warrant was defined in a similar manner as the legislator did”. Thus, one jurisprudential decision states that: “from a legal point of view, the European arrest warrant is defined as a court decision issued by the competent judicial authority of an EU Member State, in order for another state to arrest and hand over a person who is wanted in order to stand for prosecution, trial or the execution of a custodial sentence or a security measure” (European Court of Justice, 2016).

scholarly journals The Preconditions for the Admission of the Preventive Measure Based on an European Arrest Warrant

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-46
Author(s):  
Denisa Barbu ◽  
Ana Maria Pana
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Member States ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
European Institution ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters

In addition to the mandatory “grounds for refusing to execute an European arrest warrant, the legislator” also provided for some optional grounds on the basis of which the competent judicial bodies “of the executing Member State may refuse to execute an European arrest warrant”. These provisions give the courts of the executing Member State the right to invoke or not to invoke them and, implicitly, the right to execute or not to execute an European arrest warrant. In our view, the refusal to execute the warrant must be complemented by the establishment “of direct links between the judicial authorities of the two Member States”, with regard to adopting a solution to the situation. In this context, given the complexity of the cases, the specific circumstances of the crimes, as well as other elements, the two judicial authorities involved will have to ascertain the incidence of another European institution, namely the transfer of proceedings in criminal matters.

scholarly journals Access to a Lawyer for Suspects at the Police Station and During Detention Proceedings

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-151
Author(s):  
Tymon Markiewicz
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Police Station ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Main Statement ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer lays down minimum standards concerning access to a lawyer for suspects and the accused in criminal proceedings, as well as persons subject to the European arrest warrant proceedings. The present article focus on the subject of access to a lawyer at the earliest stage of criminal proceedings – in connection with arrest as well as during proceedings concerning the use of pre-trial detention. Author analyzes in sequence: subjective scope of the right to a lawyer, the right to a lawyer for the person deprived of liberty, confidentiality of communications between the person deprived of liberty and their lawyer. The main statement is that Poland does not meet that standard.

scholarly journals BRIEF COMMENTS ON THE CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 6 OF COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION NO. 2002/584/JHA REGARDING THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
MIHAELA PĂTRĂUŞ
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Member States ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Framework Decision ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Area ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Judicial Authority

Article 6, paragraph 1 of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA provides that the issuing judicial authority is the judicial authority of the Member State competent to issue a judicial decision in accordance with the law of that State for the purpose of surrender on the basis of the European arrest warrant to another EU Member State.The Court of Justice in Luxembourg, by its recent case-law, held that the notion of issuing judicial authority does not concern the prosecutor's offices in a Member State which are at risk of being subjected, directly or indirectly, to individual orders or instructions by the executive power in the context of adopting a decision on the issuing of the European arrest warrant. The effects of this judgment are mandatory for all Member States and require clarification from the Member States affected by the ECJ ruling regarding the nature of the European arrest warrant authority, even a possible intervention by the legislature in these EU Member States, to facilitate the settlement of cases of arrest in full agreement with the principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust of judgments in the European area.

Hard Way from Extradition to European Arrest Warrant

2010 ◽  
pp. 22-31
Author(s):  
O. Potyomkina
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
Existing Problems ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
National Boundaries ◽  
The Eu

The article is referred to a hard way of the European Arrest Warrant adoption, which became the first tool in the field of judicial cooperation on criminal cases having embodied the judicial decisions mutual recognition principle. The foundation of a single European Arrest Warrant with due regard to all existing problems of its appliance is a significant breakthrough in the EU states cooperation, given that it forces them to rely on each other's legislation. The European Warrant was designed to efface national boundaries in the sphere of court cooperation, to establish a "freedom of movement" and a single market of judicial decisions.

Judicial independence as a precondition for mutual trust? The CJEU in Minister for Justice and Equality v. LM

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 353-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petra Bárd ◽  
Wouter van Ballegooij
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
State Compliance ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This article discusses the relationship between judicial independence and intra-European Union (EU) cooperation in criminal matters based on the principle of mutual recognition. It focuses on the recent judgment by the Court of Justice of the EU in Case C-216/18 PPU Minister for Justice and Equality v. LM. In our view, a lack of judicial independence needs to be addressed primarily as a rule of law problem. This implies that executing judicial authorities should freeze judicial cooperation in the event should doubts arise as to respect for the rule of law in the issuing Member State. Such a measure should stay in place until the matter is resolved in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 7 TEU or a permanent mechanism for monitoring and addressing Member State compliance with democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights. The Court, however, constructed the case as a possible violation of the right to a fair trial, the essence of which includes the requirement that tribunals are independent and impartial. This latter aspect could be seen as a positive step forward in the sense that the judicial test developed in the Aranyosi case now includes rule of law considerations with regard to judicial independence. However, the practical hurdles imposed by the Court on the defence in terms of proving such violations and on judicial authorities to accept them in individual cases might amount to two steps back in upholding the rule of law within the EU.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document